Mediaboss Marketing

Last January, a New England woman was inspired to design a new beanie, commemorating the construction of President Donald Trumps planned US border wall. Her knitting pattern spelled out Build the Wall with a brick motif. Deplorable Knitter, as she calls herself, then posted the pattern on Ravelry, the internets largest collective of knitters and crocheters.

The response was vitriolic. Everyone was so angry about it, she says.

But Deplorable Knitter, whod previously just used the site to browse patterns, was fired up. When Trump announced he was running for reelection last June, she designed a Trump 2020 Keep America Great cowl. That one blew up, she says, describing threats and bullying that have forced her to remain anonymous. Her cowl pattern got flagged for hate speech, and on June 21, Deplorable Knitter was banned from Ravelry.

She was not alone. On June 23, the site banned support of Donald Trump and his administration. In a statement at the time, Ravelry said: We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy.

The ban tore Ravelry apart, with opponents of the policy making a bitter exit while liberal supporters offered a flood of patterns featuring pride flags, donkeys, and anti-Trump phrases. It has also splintered the knitting world at large, with new, overtly political (and many right-wing) sites springing up to fill the gap.

But the infighting in one of the internet's most niche communities is about more than just politics and knitting. Its a glimpse of how otherwise ignored populationshere, predominantly older womenare using online platforms to organize and make their voices heard. And the Ravelry falling-out highlights questions other platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, have tiptoed around: What constitutes hate speech, and how should censorship work online?

A decade of pattern-sharing

Ravelry boasts about 8.5 million registered users. Half a million of these are considered active, and there are 40,000 subgroups. The site is pretty ugly: its tab structure, font, and blocky formatting recall an earlier, simpler time on the internet when chat rooms reigned. It hasnt updated its design since it launched in 2007.

The site originally started as a platform for knitters and crocheters to share their works in progress, swapping tips and selling patterns. Soon groups formed around other common interests. Some were silly; others focused on things certain users had in common, like being from a similar region or being a fan of a cult TV show. The most volatile and active groups, however, were political.

Unsplash: John Cameron

For some, the politicization of knitting groups started in earnest with the Womens March in 2017. Thousands of women knitted pussy hats to protest the grab em by the pussy comment the president was revealed to have made in 2005. Nearly 5,000 knitters were active on Ravelrys dedicated subgroup for the march. Three years later, a majority remained active, says Sandra Markus, a professor at the Fashion Institute of Technology. Together with Ioana Literat, a professor at Columbia University Teachers College, she published a paper last year that chronicles online craftivism and how politics has grown with it.

Sign up for The Download your daily dose of what's up in emerging technology

The whole [pussy hat] project emerged in six weeks from Thanksgiving to New Years, and it was all online, Markus says. There was a level of effectiveness because people were dismissive of knitters as little gray-haired ladies. But when older women transgressed these boundaries with their knitting, the optics of police up against gray-haired women with balls of knitting were not good. Women were advocating and effective in online spaces.

Much of the organization behind the scenes for the Womens March and the pussy hats took place in the unmoderated spaces of Ravelry, where no entity controlled who saw what content. Unlike Facebook groups, which vet membership, Ravelrys groups (used to) let anyone in. This meant the dialogue gets much more controversial and contentious much faster, says Markus.

But with the ban on Trump-related content, many of those voices moved elsewhere. In the eight months since the ban, a slew of right-leaning Ravelry copycats have sprung up. Deplorable Knitter launched her own site, subtitled The Adventures of a Politically Incorrect Knitter, where shes gained a cult following and is currently hosting a knit-along of a hat and cowl emblazoned with Women for Trump. Theres the independent 18,000-strong Fiberkind, whose threaded chat layout most resembles Ravelry. And theres Trump-supporting Freedom Knits, where artistic freedom is respected. It has grown to 400 members in the two months since it launched.

The increased politicization of the online knitting world has come as part of a demographic shift. While the community still skews older and mostly female, it is fast diversifying. Millennialswho are generally more politically active and came of age in the AIM chatroomare now signing up to Ravelry and its offshoots. Theyve been awakened in this particular moment to capitalize on their identity, Literat says.

And its no longer just about the knitting patterns: sites like Ravelry offer a safe space for discussing politics. Deplorable Knitter and Medora Van Denburgh, who leads a 239-member Bernie Sanders group on Ravelry, both said that they live in regions that typically lean in the opposite political direction from their own, and Ravelry allowed them to feel less alone.

Its something we will see more of, Literat predicts. Other niche groups shes studied, such as Fortnite players and fan fiction sites, have created active subgroups around political conversation in much the same way. Typically, people feel safe engaging around the core interest first (in Ravelrys case, knitting or crocheting), but increasingly delve into political discussions over time.

Online communities that are hyperspecific to certain hobbies also help engender dialogue across the political dividea key point in a polarized political environment where people spend much of their time in ideological bubbles, says Literat.

You get a much wider spectrum of opinions in these spaces, she says. You see people who are already politically engaged, but also people who arent coming to these places, at least at first, because of politics.

Censorship vs free speech

Or they werent. Ravelrys equation of Trump support with white supremacy is a controversial move, even for supporters of the ban. (Ravelry declined to comment for this story, and cofounder Cassidy Forbes told me in an email that the company [doesnt] really do press that isnt part of the yarn industryits not a new policy or anything, just something weve done for the last 13 years.)

Pam Mauser, the founder of Freedom Knits, says she founded the site because she was insulted by Ravelrys stance. I knit a Trump 2020 hat, and they took it down with no notice, says Mauser, an Indiana native. They just sent me a message that its no longer acceptable. But whats acceptable on the site is stuff that says F--- Trump. Its political.

Mauser says her site welcomes both liberals and conservatives. If you want to post about Obama, thats perfectly fine, she says. Its not political. Its Freedom Knits. I dont believe in censoring people who dont believe the way you believe.

On the other side of the aisle, Van Denburgh says the ban on Trump support wasnt something that sat comfortably with her either. I truly was stymied by the conflict between my principles [of free speech] and my grudging admission of the fact that Ravelry had done the right thing in enacting the ban, she says.

The controversy shines a light on the future of political organizing: ultra-niche, small-but-vocal online communities built around an otherwise nonpolitical hobby or interest. For Literat, Ravelrys ban presents a litmus test for the future of niche-site censorship and whether its best to forge a single, politically homogenous community or to splinter fringe users off.

It is also giving women a new way to become politicized online. For Amy Singer, the founder of another knitting site, Knitty, thats good news.

The one thing that crafts have always done is bring solace, she says. It gives us a way to express whats upsetting us, hope for change, and bring comfort. Knittings not for grannies. Were not scared any more.

Follow this link:
How a ban on pro-Trump patterns unraveled the online knitting world - MIT Technology Review

from the exactly dept

We've already pointed out that Facebook's latest moves to say it's okay to strip away Section 230's protections are all about giving Facebook more power and harming competitors -- and now the author of Section 230, Senator Ron Wyden, has put out quite an op-ed in the Washington Post explaining just how much damage would be done in chipping away at Section 230. In particular, he highlights two key reasons why we shouldn't do it: (1) It would lock in the most powerful companies like Facebook and Google (even as misguided critics seem to think taking away Section 230 protections will harm them), and (2) It will enable the Trump administration to increase online censorship of marginalized voices.

On the first point, the argument is the one I made regarding Facebook's new stance, though Wyden expresses it succinctly:

Some have argued that repealing Section 230 would punish Facebook and Google for their failures. Thats simply not true. The biggest tech companies have enough lawyers and lobbyists to survive virtually any regulation Congress can concoct. Its the start-ups seeking to displace Big Tech that would be hammered by the constant threat of lawsuits.

He notes, as we have in the past, that most of the lobbying to gut 230 is being lead by industries that failed to adapt to the internet, and are now using 230 as a hammer to try to stay relevant.

The argument about speech is equally as important:

Im certain this administration would use power to regulate speech to punish its enemies and protect its allies. It would threaten Facebook or YouTube for taking down white supremacist content. It would label Black Lives Matter activists as purveyors of hate.

Again, this is exactly what we've warned about. Section 230 has created spaces online for the most marginalized to speak out -- and they will be the first to be silenced. Indeed, that's exactly what we've already seen post SESTA. The law that was passed in the name of "protecting sex trafficking victims" has actually put sex workers at risk. Wyden points out that the law appears to have done the opposite of what its backers promised:

Backpage was shut down before SESTA even went into effect. And sex workers have been driven to the dark Web or the streets, where sex trafficking has increased dramatically. The most vulnerable group bore the brunt of this law.

And the same is likely for any other attempt to attack 230 as well.

What's really incredible in all of this is how little those looking to modify or remove 230 seem to even understand 230. They seem to blame all sorts of societal problems on 230, even though all 230 has done is allow people to express themselves. And from there, the complaints against 230 are often contradictory. Some are worried that two much speech is silenced through moderation, while others complain that not enough speech is silenced. But neither is a 230 problem. They are all just representations of the impossibility of pleasing everyone when it comes to moderation policies. But taking away 230 or even modifying it won't change any of that. All it will do is lead to much greater censorship, and much more power for the biggest internet companies.

As is often the case, it would be nice if others in Congress actually listened to Ron Wyden on this -- as he's been right since the very beginning, and every time people ignore him, they end up looking foolish. Unfortunately, I fear that they will end up looking foolish yet again.

Filed Under: censorship, competition, free speech, ron wyden, section 230Companies: facebook

Go here to see the original:
Ron Wyden: Modifying Section 230 Will Give More Censorship Power To Trump; And Lock In Facebook's Dominance - Techdirt

The report provides strong confirmation that conservatives face a hostile campus.

Among students who self-identify as liberals, some 10 percent said they hear disrespectful, inappropriate, or offensive comments about foreign students at least several times a semester, 14 percent said they hear disparaging comments about Muslims, 20 percent said they hear such comments about African Americans, 20 percent said they hear such comments about Christians, 21 percent said they hear such comments about LGBTQ individuals, and 57 percent said they hear such comments about conservatives. Among moderates, 68 percent said that they hear disrespectful, inappropriate, or offensive comments about conservatives at least several times a semester.

Out conservatives may face social isolation. Roughly 92 percent of conservatives said they would be friends with a liberal, and just 3 percent said that they would not have a liberal friend. Among liberals, however, almost a quarter said they would not have a conservative friend. Would UNC be a better place without conservatives? About 22 percent of liberals said yes. Would it be a better place without liberals? Almost 15 percent of conservatives thought so.

Lee C. Bollinger: Free speech on campus is doing just fine, thank you

Self-identified conservative students do in fact face distinct challenges related to viewpoint expression at UNC, the authors conclude. They urge a conversation about how the campus can become more accepting of conservative students as well as more willing to hear and engage with conservative ideas. After all, they ask, who would dispute that universities should be places where each idea is considered on its own terms, and not prejudged? Where sincerely held conclusions can be offered up for vigorous and civil contestation? Where students are assumed to be arguing in good faith and where they feel valued and respected, even should they turn out to be wrong?

As important, the authors correctly emphasize that the wrong way to interpret our report would be to see it as pitting liberals against conservatives, not only because many liberals and moderates harbor similar anxieties about sharing earnest views, but also because even though political hostility emerges disproportionately from the political left at UNC, that hostility comes from a minority, not a majority, of liberals. Tolerant students belong to a cross-ideological majority. While divided in their politics, both are ill-served by the minority faction of intolerant censors.

Self-censorship is among several significant reasons to believe that free speech remains under threat on American campuses, harming undergraduate education. I try to avoid talk of crisis, because I believe that free speech is perpetually threatened and requires constant vigilance to sustain. But however we label the status quo, Americas professors ought to be aware of these problems.

Originally posted here:
Evidence That Conservative Students Really Do Self-Censor - The Atlantic

The UK government has unveiled its proposals to tackle so-called online harms. It wants to regulate social media through Ofcom, which currently regulates the media and the telecoms industry.

Under the proposals, Ofcom will be empowered to ensure that tech firms adopt a duty of care towards users, especially children. This is to protect users, first, from illegal content, such as child pornography, which Ofcom will require tech firms to remove; and second, from harmful but legal content. In the second case, Ofcom will require tech firms to be upfront about what behaviour is acceptable and unacceptable on their sites, in the shape of transparently enforced terms and conditions. So, if a social-media platform states that promoting self-harm is unacceptable, Ofcom is empowered to ensure that stipulation is enforced. In addition, all companies will need to ensure a higher level of protection for children, and take reasonable steps to protect them from inappropriate or harmful content.

Failure to comply with Ofcoms demands could, or so at least one report suggests, result in executives at offending companies receiving substantial fines or even prison sentences.

Full details about the legislation and the powers it entails will be released this spring. But make no mistake: even as it stands this plan is a serious threat to internet freedom.

For one thing, these proposals dont just encompass the internets social-media behemoths, such as Facebook. Ofcoms writ will run to all sites that provide services allowing the sharing of user-generated content or user interactions. That means if you run a pressure group, or a political website, and publish material or comments from users, then you are potentially in Ofcoms crosshairs.

Whats more, quite apart from demanding that tech firms take down illegal material, Ofcom will require all sites featuring user-generated content to ensure their own terms and conditions are enforced. That is quite a burden. First, all sites will be forced to draft terms and conditions, and conceive of thresholds for harmful but legal content. They will then also have to come up with processes and systems to deal with complaints and allow for redress. And then they will have to take responsibility for enforcing the terms and conditions or face the potential wrath of Ofcom.

Empowering Ofcom to enforce sites own regulation of harmful but legal content could be disastrous. And you can bet that there will be plenty of people and pressure groups itching to use this new state power to suppress discussions they would rather not see take place.

Yes, the plan states that safeguards for freedom of expression have been built in throughout the framework. Hence the freedom to publish harmful but legal content as long as its clearly permitted in a platforms terms and conditions. But unfortunately, even this freedom is qualified by the imperative to respect the rights of children, and the corresponding demand that companies ensure there is a higher level of protection for children. From this, it could follow that there will be removal-of-content orders aimed at legal discussions of, for example, the morality of suicide, or anti-vaccination, because they are deemed too harmful to children.

Besides, the line between legal and illegal speech is pretty fluid anyway. Despite former policeman Harry Millers minor victory over an over-intrusive Humberside Police last week, the catch-all prohibition in section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 on grossly offensive material online is open to interpretation. It still means that any pungent or forceful statement that happens to annoy some interest group or other could give Ofcom reason to think it criminal and demand removal.

For all home secretary Priti Patels talk of needing to tame the Wild West of the internet in order to protect our children, it is clear what we have here: a plan for worryingly sweeping restrictions on what we can say, or allow others to say, online not to mention an enormous increase in bureaucrats power to snoop.

It is not even clear that any of this will be very effective. Even Ofcom accepts that it can only realistically intervene in sites in the UK. Depending on how the government responds to criticisms already made of its proposals, we shall have to see whether its plans merely prompt controversial sites to move abroad, or even to some convenient offshore jurisdiction, like the Isle of Man. If this happens, there will be precious little Ofcom will be able to do about them even if what they say is truly criminal. Even by Ofcoms curious standards, that would be a spectacular own goal.

Andrew Tettenborn is a professor of commercial law and a former Cambridge admissions officer.

Picture by: Getty.

Read the original post:
This is state censorship of the internet - Spiked

A coalition of civil, political and human rights groups have penned an open letter to Apple, calling on the company to stop enabling censorship and surveillance in China.

As spotted by Phayul: the letter was signed by groups such as Tibet Action Institute, Free Tibet, Keep Taiwan Free and SumOfUs.

The letter, addressed directly to Phil Schiller, reads:

We are a coalition of civil, political, human rights, freedom of expression, corporate accountability, privacy, and digital security organizations, many of whom are longtime Apple users. Together we represent communities in the US and abroad gravely impacted by Apple's decisions with regard to the Chinese App Store and user information. We are writing to express our serious concerns over Apple's confirmed removal of applications from the iOS App Store in China, including 1,000+ Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and news apps like the New York Times and Quartz, as well as the transfer of Apple users' iCloud data to a Chinese state-run telecom company. Many of our organizations have submitted letters1 to CEO Tim Cook raising these concerns and have yet to receive any response. Given that Apple's removal of VPNs and news apps sets a blatant and unethical double standard for the Chinese App Store, we are now bringing our serious concerns directly to you, the head of the App Store.

The letter highlights concerns such as Apple's "compliance with China's censorship and surveillance demands", which puts the App Store's actions "in direct contradiction" with its claim that "Privacy is a fundamental human right." It continues:

In reality, Apple's actions demonstrate that privacy is only a right for certain people. Since Apple removed VPNs from the App Store, iOS users in China have been left unable to easily protect their internet communications from pervasive surveillance. Apple's closed App Store ecosystem forces users who want to install banned applications to jailbreak their devices and give up the security measures that make Apple devices unique. Additionally, since relocating China's Apple iCloud data to mainland China, Apple has further ensured that hundreds of millions of people are forced to choose between allowing their data to be obtained without effective due process, or forgoing the online storage and backup measures your company has diligently developed.

The letter also mentions incidents such as the HKmap.live app, as well as the removal of the Taiwanese flag for users in Hong Kong, Macau and Mainland China.

The letter concludes by asking that Apple meets with the group to discuss the concerns outlined, as well as asking that Apple pressure governments to be "specific, transparent, and consistent in their requirements". You can read the letter in its entirety here.

You can buy some very expensive cars that don't support CarPlay yet, but someone managed to make it work with their Raspberry Pi 3.

Amid growing concerns about the threat posed by coronavirus, Mobile World Congress 2020, one of the year's biggest tech events, was cancelled last week. Here's what it means for the industry, vendors, and consumers.

Hell has frozen over. Pigs are flying. And cats and dogs are living together in perfect harmony

Apple's iconic rainbow logo has often been associated with the LGBT+ movement. Show your support by wearing an Apple-themed Pride t-shirt, including the one we like the best.

Originally posted here:
Organizations pen letter to Apple calling on an end to censorship in China - iMore